LessO2:It's gonna be hard to find anyone, short of relatives, to be outraged about shooting at these guys, whether they had any guns or not. There will likely be more people outraged at the fact little brother didn't die.

I'm pretty outraged about the police response to this whole situation. Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week and shooting at unarmed suspects? This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.

remus:Amos Quito: doyner: since the rules of engagement were "don't fire unless fired upon," obviously he was armed.

No one wants to be on the receiving end of hot lead.

Shoot first.

Answer the uncomfortable questions later.

Cops have been shot during traffic stops before. No one wants be on the receiving end of hot lead. So, shoot everyone in the car when they pull it over? Officer safety! Amiright?

THAT, well the variation of that, is the problem. They exaggerate the risks to themselves, exaggerate the capabilities of their opponent, then treat everyone they encounter as an opponent while placing their safety above all else. This is a recipe for disaster and serious injury and death to anyone unlucky enough to be in range of them.

So the cops went ape shiat crazy and shot hundreds of bullets at an unarmed guy.... do tell

The only thing it sounds well done about the response to this attack was the medical treatment of the victims.

Other than that, it sounds like the cops/fbi did their usual lousy job with the infinite resources they posses.

Cut the FBI budget in half. Stop all the anything done without warrants. I would rather take the chance of being a victim in one of these attacks than have these trigger happy bungling idiots on my side

"Three guns" shrinks to one gun... allegations of #2's neck wound being "self-inflicted" evaporate... Also, the only "exchange" of gunfire in the vicinity of the boat was between cops... - #2 shot in the neck while in the boat - unarmed?

And the Grand Tradition of Dorner Newspaper Deliverers Marksmanship lives on as "over 200 shots fired" in the "shootout" (mostly by the police, obviously) and few hit their targets.

Here's a link to the more detailed NY Times article referenced in the story. I would imagine there will be more to come in the morning and in the ensuing days.

Two bad men did bad, bad things, and while I'm happy that they won't be doing more, it appears that law enforcement is overdue for some serious introspection.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Did this happen in "reality", or just in your melon? Follow-up question: How many black helicopters do you see, right now?

"Shelter in place," go here, don't go there, do that, "what's in that bag?" Mr. random guy that in no way resembles our target. They were filmed being pushy and I am not a tinfoil hatter. I don't want my policemen to act like our military any more than I want our military to act like policemen. Was it really necessary to lock down that whole portion of Boston, especially with the hindsight knowledge that a random guy going out for a smoke found the farker? Armored personnel carriers vs pressure cookers? It looked like theater, and the people were intimidated.

My cousin is a cop (she is blonde and hot, btw) and so is her husband (who is a douche), and they voiced concerns similar to mine regarding the response. They thought it was too intimidating and would have preferred that the toys and the attitude were traditional, not military. They did wish that they got to play with the toys, though.

I am not asking the police for a symmetrical response, but didn't their military equipment seem a bit extreme to you? Didn't it seem like maybe they have been looking forward to playing with all of their new toys?

We can't just accept whatever they do whenever they do it as inherently necessary, because incrementally our lack of objection will breed a consistently unacceptable enforcement apparatus. Again, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am definitely a person who expects my government to respect my rights, just as I respect my government's legitimate authority. Complacent bargaining away of rights undermines the legitimacy of authority. The response was disproportionate to the threat. Unless an army is invading Boston, I don't want to see armored vehicles, and unless the police have reason to suspect everybody, I don't want them to suspect everybody.

Either that, or whatever the police do is just fine, because police are doing it, and they always play by the rules.

chumboobler:I have not read any comments or the article that is linked. I read and saw some things that trouble me though. The guy was unarmed. He appeared to be able to get out of the boat without trouble. Suddenly, he is in life threatening condition in the hospital and can't talk. Police are people. They can overreact. They re, however, paid to NOT overreact. to uphold the law. Law that requires due process. It seems to me, he was not.He was a shoot first ask questions later suspect........ Suspect. Not convicted felon and escapee. A possible suspect.

He was fine getting in and out of the boat. He had no weapons. He was nearly dead, and most likely expected to be, when they got him in custody. If he did what he is accused of, he is a giant asshole, if he didn't he is a poor soul. No matter what, the police response was ridiculous and unAmerican. It was very totalitarian. House clearing and all.

Innocent unless proven guilty. Unless. Not until..

This.

To me they looked like a bunch of boys out playing with their toys. All of that homeland security funded military equipment on parade, houses searched, civilians pushed around and confined to their homes, bus loads of tactical-vested shiat-kickers all around, vigorously exercising authority and wiping their brows with the Constitution-- they must have been feeling pretty jacked up by the time the smoker noticed a Chechen in his boat.

I have not read any comments or the article that is linked. I read and saw some things that trouble me though. The guy was unarmed. He appeared to be able to get out of the boat without trouble. Suddenly, he is in life threatening condition in the hospital and can't talk. Police are people. They can overreact. They re, however, paid to NOT overreact. to uphold the law. Law that requires due process. It seems to me, he was not.He was a shoot first ask questions later suspect........ Suspect. Not convicted felon and escapee. A possible suspect.

He was fine getting in and out of the boat. He had no weapons. He was nearly dead, and most likely expected to be, when they got him in custody. If he did what he is accused of, he is a giant asshole, if he didn't he is a poor soul. No matter what, the police response was ridiculous and unAmerican. It was very totalitarian. House clearing and all.

After capturing the younger brother, my opinion of law enforcement improved a bit. And now...this. Cops are generally lying sacks of shiat who are marginally better than the scum they're after, but they are still generally lying sacks of shiat.

ohknaks:I'm pretty outraged about the police response to this whole situation. Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week and shooting at unarmed suspects? This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.

Shutting down a city for a week? Uh, didn't they "shut things down" just on Friday? And it's not like they ordered everyone to stay inside, they recommended people to stay inside.

I'm not a badge defender, but c'mon, at least get your facts straight. Especially in a thread from a story about getting facts wrong.

Old enough to know better:Just farking great. How long until this kid gets turned into some kind of tea party hero who's been victimized by the evil government?

As you may know, there is an ideal, a "concept" that we commonly refer to as the "Rule of Law" - you know, the Constitutionally Founded principles that we, as a society, are ideally to adhere to in the interest of peace, safety, order and justice.

The "thing" that (supposedly) differentiates the "good guys" from the "bad guys" is that the former are EXPECTED to adhere to the "Rule of Law" - and by so doing, they retain the "Moral High-Ground", thereby earning the trust and support of The People.

Once the "good guys" - the AUTHORITAY - forsake or abandon the "Rule of Law" for ANY reason, the "Moral High-Ground" is lost, and all simply becomes a contest of raw force and WILL, and we surrender our future to that HOPE that those with the greatest force will act in the best interests of society at large.

Dangerous territory, don't you think?

You may have noticed that this "Might Makes Right" attitude has become increasingly dominant in our affairs - both domestic and international - over the past several decades.

Historically, this type of behavior has NOT bode well for social order, or for the future of any society that embraces such behavior.

I have no reason to suspect that history would grant an exception in our case.

Biological Ali:TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.

As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.

I remember watching the video live during the Tienanmen Square crackdown. The Chinese tanks were rolling in to curb stomp the people trying to demonstrate for a little bit of freedom. One old guy walked out and just stood in front of the line of tanks. That was one "retarded don't tread on me!" guy? He stood up to them and let them know that it was wrong to do what they were doing. His simple act showed the entire world what was right and what was wrong.

If one guy had actually stood in his door and told those cops no. And it was being filmed. Maybe, just maybe people would have seen that you can't lose or give up your Liberty just because the cops think there might be a bad guy somewhere in a big huge area. That doesn't give them the right to force you out of your house at gunpoint and search it against your will. It just doesn't. They have to have more reason than you are a few blocks from where we lost our suspect and we're really desperate.

You call him retarded. Is it retarded to remind the world of what is right and what is wrong?

Biological Ali:TopoGigo: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

Let's say the police saw the suspect (an armed and extremely dangerous individual believed to be responsible for several deaths and a great deal of destruction) enter one specific house. Would they need to get a warrant before they could go inside?

If the police have a reasonable belief that that suspect continues to pose a threat, then hell no. That's the very reason for the probable cause exemptions. The cops do have a tendency to stretch the spirit of it for suspects they damned well could wait for a warrant before arresting, but for this particular asshole it would be perfectly reasonable to search that house. In fact, if they had seen the asshole enter a small 4 or 6 unit apartment building, it would have been reasonable to search every apartment. Much less certain than that, though, and you lose probable cause.

The police in this case had very good reason to believe that the guy was somewhere inside the area that had been cordoned off. It just so happened that this area contained a number of houses.

Not good enough for a warrant. No judge is going to grant them a fishing license to troll a huge block of houses for a suspect. They have to be able to articulate a specific reason why they want to search a given house and have to detail precisely what they are going to look for. It's written like that for a reason. The Founders were not pleased with the way the British would just go house to house whenever they wanted and tear it all apart to see whey they could find. They wanted to be very clear that the police can't use exactly these tactics that were used in Watertown.

I know they wanted the guy, but if you shouldn't give up your Rights for the illusion of security. Those cops should have known better than to play dress up in their tacticool pretend army gear and terrorize the decent folks with their jack booted storm trooper imitation.

Here's the deal, if this had been a well healed neighborhood, with lots of rich people (the kind that are lawyers and doctors and have lawyers on their speed dial), do you really think they'd have tried this crap? Can you see them trying to pull this storm trooper put your hands up, get out of your house stuff with rich folks? Nope, they'd have so many lawsuits it would bury them. The Chief's phone would have been ringing off the hook. They only got away with this because most of us middle class people don't have lawyers and don't know the Chief's personal cell number because we play golf with him and the Mayor on Sunday...

links136:pedrop357: links136: They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB& in dex=12

Yeah, super voluntary.

I also know there were pictures from farkers of cops going through their home, said they were super friendly about it. I don't know anymore, i'm guessing they searched like this in the immediate 2 by 2 area. I'd like to hear from local residents about everything that happened.

Huh. If you watch the video, people come out with their hands on their heads. Some of them then lower their hands, and get yelled at to put them back up. Why? It was immediately obvious that none of them were the bomber.I also counted them getting frisked multiple times - once by the guy at the bottom of the stairs, and then again once they were by the truck.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

Not according to that video linked higher up in the thread. According to that video, SWAT was showing up at people's doors, pointing guns in their faces and yelling "get out, get out" before barging right on in. Then the video implied they weren't letting people back in their houses. So, yeah, thats a big deal.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen. Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.//doubleplusungood

So sick of this part of this shiat... "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.

Am I allowed to point my gun at people in case they might do something to me? Is it OK for me to point guns at people so that people don't rag on me for being incompetent?

redsquid:401kman: It was dumb luck that they didn't shoot anyone else. They got really lucky they didn't shoot that guy sitting in that chair.

Yes the stay at home shiat was a good move. I don't think anyone would have been better off on the street with the army going down the street with safeties off.

My point is that they probably could have done the same jobA) with a much smaller force...and not the fricking national guard and swarms of swat team guys with heavy ordinance and itchy trigger fingers.B) The suspects in this case were easy to spot. The second suspect was missed by the inch by inch search and found by some boat crazy guy who noticed that a trail of blood was all over his backyard and precious boat. With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed. And not turned the entire block into a bullet fiesta, where no one really knows why anyone is shooting anymore.

I agree about the smaller force thing. I also think it would have worked just as well if it was handled by the locals. I think the feds and National Guard probably made things worse. I know the use of different radios by different agencies probably made communications far less efficient. On the other hand, if this had been a well organized terror cell and the Boston boys flubbed it, the press and arm chair strategists would have eaten them alive.Of course the photo of the soldier pointing his rifle at the photographer in their own house is pretty scary. The civil liberties precedent is the most worrying outcome of this story. Like I said, we need to insure it doesn't become the norm.

Its amazing how many civil liberties people would be willing to give up not to have this happen. Living in New York I talk to pretty reasonable people who either tacitly/actively agree with all this warrantless stuff. Also people that actively advocate censorship to prevent designs of common devices, like the bombs these rocket scientist assholes cooked up in Boston, from reaching the internet.

The implications of these very common attitudes in and out of congress. And the massive buildup in the "intelligence" services and "homeland security" type organizations that seems to defy almost all of the austerity measures that government is legislating (actively or passively). Leave me more concerned that I would caught in the cross fire of those that are trying to "keep me safe" than those who actively wish me harm.

In other words as a New Yorker I am very scared of friendly fire. And think that cops waste a ton of my money to give me the illusion of safety.

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen. Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.//doubleplusungood

So sick of this part of this shiat... "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.

WTF was law enforcement supposed to do? Tip toe down the center of the street calling "olly olly oxen free, come out come out wherever you are" ???

If they had done anything less, someone else would give them shiat for not doing enough.

The thing is, he's pointing his weapon directly at a person a few feet away who is obviously standing in an open window taking his picture. At that distance, the cop (who's got his make believe solider outfit on with all his awesome tacticool gear on) should very clearly have recognized that a) the face in the window wasn't the same as the picture of the suspect and b) he was just taking a picture and wasn't a threat. Thus, he should put down the rifle and continue sweeping for an actual threat.

Does that mean an increased danger to the police? Yes. But they are supposed to put that pesky Constitution before their lives. That means they don't get to go all Martial Law all over the citizens just because a SUSPECT MIGHT be nearby. They should be following the rule of law and not recklessly pointing loaded rifles are obviously innocent civilians.

I'm sorry, but if you ask me to choose Safety or Liberty, I'll keep my Liberty and take my chances. They should have been getting search warrants. That, however, would have actually required them to articulate probable cause for each individual house, which they obviously didn't have. Judges don't normally give the cops carte blanche to go on fishing expeditions. So, they just went Judge Dredd and did what they liked.

LessO2:It's gonna be hard to find anyone, short of relatives, to be outraged about shooting at these guys, whether they had any guns or not. There will likely be more people outraged at the fact little brother didn't die.

I'm outraged. The police are there to uphold the law, I understand that emotions were running high but officers are supposed to be professionals not a lynch mob.

I heard it was a Glock AK-47 with detachable high-capacity 30 bullet clip mags. Collapsible stocks and barrel shrouds included...

Actually they had multiple 900-round ammo belts, and the bullets were injected with depleted uraniaum and then sprayed with teflon so they would penetrate SWAT vests. And they soaked them in rat poison so they wounds wouldn't coagulate.

LessO2:It's gonna be hard to find anyone, short of relatives, to be outraged about shooting at these guys, whether they had any guns or not. There will likely be more people outraged at the fact little brother didn't die.

The FBI agent and state police officer that were fired on by other cops might be a little angry, as should all the people whose houses were riddled with bullets by police who were operating on bad information and shoot like shiat.

Better arrest the pharmaceutical industry executives and see why they hate 'Murica.Oh wait thats a legal drug that is destroying America with terrorist old ladies going to Target. But she did not have a drivers license so no crime committed.

/This just in: Cops shoot the fark out of the neighborhood as they carry out an execution warrant. Cops even shot themselves since all cops look alike in the dark.//At least Boston will only be paying out less than a $hundred grand for the naked in the street strip search and that dragging of the scared girl out of her home by the home invasion goons.

Jesus farking christ the manufactured outrage. Dude was hucking bombs one day prior. ran over and killed his own brother to escape. I would have shot at him too. cops were probably scared shiatless. theyre people too.

whidbey:Honestly at this point you're the one having problems with reality here. Like whether your tinfoil hat should be in the shape of a chicky or a ducky.

You know what? You're absolutely right. I concede defeat.

Cops never exceed their authority.Our Fourth Amendment rights are as secure today as they were 200 years ago.People always behave rationally even in the face of a terrorist bombing.There is no footage of police escorting law-abiding citizens out of their houses at gunpoint.There is no question that the police had the legal authority to confine law-abiding citizens to their homes.There is no question that the police had the legal authority to search several, if not dozens of, homes without warrants or permission to do so.You have presented a coherent argument that the police had probable cause to do these things.I am a lunatic conspiracy theorist who probably believes this was a false flag operation by Mohawk O'Droneya and the UN to enforce Agenda 21 and urban planning gun control soda bans.I shall now retreat to my panic room cum den of iniquity cum evil lair deep under the Apollo sound stage in the Nevada desert. I bid you fare well, and I'll tell JFK and Elvis you said hi.

That is the link I was digging through the thread looking for. Like I said, it's not definitive evidence, but it convinced me that at least some number of people were treated like they lived in the old Soviet Bloc. Whether police behaved that way in a 2x2 block area, a 20x20 block area, or a city-wide area is immaterial. Some people's rights were violated.

Bullshiat.

And despite your own admission that there is no evidence of rights violations, you have also decided to keep farking the chicken.

Thanks for being a prime example of what's so frustrating about living in this coumtry.

Yes, please. More naked assertions. Feel free to read "not definitive evidence" and parse it as "no evidence". Can you make any rational argument that "no rights were violated" or "police had probable cause"? I'm not even asking for citations here, just any argument aside from bare-assed assertions. The only thing close to an argument or explanation I've heard from you on this is that the police obviously had probable cause because bombs are bad.

StopLurkListen:Theaetetus: farkinglizardking: Theaetetus: TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.

Also, what about when they show up next week with a search warrant looking for your weed? Or are we supposed to prevent that they forgot everything they saw?

what would they base the warrant off of? the illegal search for a terrorist the week before?

"Anonymous" tip describing in great detail the location of the weed, which could be sufficient for a warrant under Illinois v. Gates.

i'm not saying it would be a pain for the individual in question, but ultimately it would end up with no charges. i'm not saying the cops wouldn't pursue, but in such a tense situation the last thing they'd be thinking about was some misdemeanor paraphenlia charge...

Nope, but they might put a checkmark on a list of houses checked with a note saying "weed found, come back next week with a warrant".

TopoGigo:farkinglizardking: TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: I'm not condoning unreasonable search and seizure either. However, given the circumstances, (bear in mind this is all hypothetical because I don't live in Boston) I would let them do a quick sweep to be sure I didn't have a potential terrorist in my closet.

Well, maybe. If the cops come knocking on your door and ask to search your house, that's a horse of an entirely different color. I would definitely have let them search my yard to their heart's content, and probably an outbuilding or garage had they asked. I wasn't there, but I think that I would have assured them that I'd search my own house for them and let them know if I found any dashing young terrorists. Maybe if I were in that situation I'd have felt differently, though. The bottom line here is that the police are entirely justified in coming to your door and asking to search your house, but not to force you outside while they search your house without warrant or permission.

Again, I agree, but when did this scenario occur? If I didn't see the news article I apologize. But link me to such an injustice or otherwise don't toss out hypotheticals

Well, there's a link to a newscast upthread about 70 comments or so. It's not definitive evidence that the cops performed searches without warrant or permission, but it's pretty damning nonetheless. Other commenters have mentioned, but not linked, more incriminating videos. Besides the fact that we've been arguing about it for the last 150 comments or so. In fact, we seem to have completely forgotten TFA in our rage; nobody's mentioned the fact that it claims that Justin Bomber was unarmed at the time of his capture but the cops shot the hell out of him.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore, so I'll throw out an olive branch.

I don't know of anyone being forced out of their homes by the militia roaming the streets. Nor do I know of anyone being charged because of said unwarranted searches in the Boston area.

I don't agree with the way these searches were conducted. But as I said in an earlier comment, there was no precedent for them to follow. The fact that no innocent civilians were killed is remarkable.

And the MSM was whining a week ago that he had four or five firearms on him. Him being unarmed is a fact that I just heard today. I'm not sure what to believe anymore.

My only hope is that someone analyzes this situation and establishes a police protocol for active terrorists suspects in a residential area.

Theaetetus:farkinglizardking: Theaetetus: TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.

Also, what about when they show up next week with a search warrant looking for your weed? Or are we supposed to prevent that they forgot everything they saw?

what would they base the warrant off of? the illegal search for a terrorist the week before?

"Anonymous" tip describing in great detail the location of the weed, which could be sufficient for a warrant under Illinois v. Gates.

i'm not saying it would be a pain for the individual in question, but ultimately it would end up with no charges. i'm not saying the cops wouldn't pursue, but in such a tense situation the last thing they'd be thinking about was some misdemeanor paraphenlia charge...

Nope, but they might put a checkmark on a list of houses checked with a note saying "weed found, come back next week with a warrant".

whidbey:Amos Quito: winchester92: I live in Watertown and tow for the state and local police, I towed one of the smashed and shot-up police cruisers from the scene of the shootout. It's incredible how much of the story the media got wrong. They also never mentioned the name of the boat. I know it because I have friends who know the owner personally, and we looked up the boat name in the Watertown Yacht Club directory. BTW, it's "Slip Away II". Is that freaky or what ??

"All the Federales sayThey could have had him any dayThey only let him Slip AwayOut of kindness, I suppose..."

You have a really unhealthy obsession with outlaws. Just saying. Protip: romanticizing lawbreakers doesn't make them innocent.

IntertubeUser:After capturing the younger brother, my opinion of law enforcement improved a bit. And now...this. Cops are generally lying sacks of shiat who are marginally better than the scum they're after, but they are still generally lying sacks of shiat.

Never trust cops to tell the truth. Ever.

Hear, hear!

"KNOCK, KNOCK!""Who's there?""COPS. Let us in now!""Do you have a warrant?""No. we're COPS. Let us in now!""Hmmn. Piss off. And don't damage the door or I'll sue, mmnkay?"

farkinglizardking:I'm not condoning unreasonable search and seizure either. However, given the circumstances, (bear in mind this is all hypothetical because I don't live in Boston) I would let them do a quick sweep to be sure I didn't have a potential terrorist in my closet.

Well, maybe. If the cops come knocking on your door and ask to search your house, that's a horse of an entirely different color. I would definitely have let them search my yard to their heart's content, and probably an outbuilding or garage had they asked. I wasn't there, but I think that I would have assured them that I'd search my own house for them and let them know if I found any dashing young terrorists. Maybe if I were in that situation I'd have felt differently, though. The bottom line here is that the police are entirely justified in coming to your door and asking to search your house, but not to force you outside while they search your house without warrant or permission.

farkinglizardking:luxup: farkinglizardking: luxup: Amos Quito: luxup: Amos Quito: luxup: Just wondering something. I was listening on the scanner that Friday and I remember after that first firefight someone was saying to make sure to load up on the rubber bullets. I don't remember the exact words but he mentioned rubber bullets twice and I certainly had the impression they were not using live ammo. I figured they wanted to get this guy alive.

Accepting that they were using rubber bullets instead of live ammo, could they have opened fire with the intent to incapacitate without killing thereby making his having a gun irrelevant? If he had a gun or not (which it looks like he didn't at the time), could pelting him with rubber shots been a tactic to make him easier to approach?

Yeah, they were after assailant(s) that they believed just KILLED A COP.

I'm sure they were all about the "less than lethal" mentality.

/Think of Chris Dorner

How does any of that change that they were using rubber bullets?

I don't know that anyone was using "rubber bullets", and neither do you.

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

Did they mean what they said? Or were they playing to their AUDIENCE (you)?

Maybe "rubber bullets" is cop code for KILL THAT MOTHERFARKER!

/Got evidence?

Wow! Like you would listen to evidence. And I'm sure that the cops, who had to finally remind everyone over the scanner that their mikes were open were putting on a show for us.

Ass u me.

Again, let's see that video you keep referencing. I promise I'll watch and listen. I'll even have my legal pad out with a pen. If it supports your assertions, I will acknowledge.

/But what do I know?//Just about to get a J.D. is all...

Just google it and you will see many others heard it as well. It was chatter on the scanner of what was going on and if you were listening to the scanner it was obvious to you that the media was not.

Piece of advice. Before you get that J.D. I advise you work on your listening s ...

There are hundreds, if not thousands of results that pop up when you google said subject in question. If you have such insider knowledge, just post a farking link. I'm still not sure which video/audio/animated GIF you're referencing.

I will listen, I just have to know what to listen to.

The source was the Boston police scanner. I thought that was a given when I said that I listened to it on the scanner. Not sure how I can be more clear on that. Just pointing out that you will find plenty of cases of other people having heard the same thing over the police scanners. Just search for watertown shootout rubber bullets but you will get other reports of what people heard on the scanner. Sorry but I don't know where you can find a link to the Boston police scanner transcripts for Friday 4/19/2013. If you know where to get it then give a listen. If you do then you will hear that when they were closing in on the boat they were using rubber bullets.

Sorry I wasn't recording it or taking notes. Other people posted (like they do here) on other sites...

-If you listen to the police radio tapes you would know that they were using rubber bullets

-I monitored the scanner feed throughout the entire incident from carjacking to apprehension, and the FBI HRT used non-lethal rounds, flash bangs, and tear gas (CS).

-They hit him with at least ten flashbangs and rubber bullets for over an hour listen to the audio.

Like I said, I don't know where to get police scanner audio. I'm sure you can use the JD your quick to tell people about to find out how to get it. When you do give it a listen. Shouldn't be hard to find if you go to the correct time.

LessO2:It's gonna be hard to find anyone, short of relatives, to be outraged about shooting at these guys, whether they had any guns or not. There will likely be more people outraged at the fact little brother didn't die.

All I can say is, in my experience, if you have some (definitely not caused by you) emergency in your house that ends up with the cops and/or firemen coming in, and they find weed, you will get arrested for it.

Perhaps in this case they were excited enough about the main event to not bother, but... probably best at least try to hide things before they come busting in.

It was more like a military invasion than a manhunt. Putting that kind of ordinance in close contact with with civilians is more like something for a time of war. Because the very real problem is that putting troops in with civilians will cause casualties.

In this case the police/fbi response was way overkill for the even the worst case projections of what heat the suspects were packing.

Not seeing it. And I would have to say that after a horrible act of attempted mass murder that took place at the Marathon and the firefight in Watertown, anyone refusing to cooperate in the ensuing manhunt just ends up looking like a total asshole hampering an apprehension process.

Suppose I told you that 97% +/- (say 2%) of the bullets fired/bombs set off were from law enforcement in the apprehension of these suspects in a crowded city neighborhood. And that your odds from being the victim of some gun crime vs a terrorist attack are 100,000 to 1. Lets say there is a 75% percent chance that everything I just said was true.

Would you still say that the cops/fbi response had made you any safer?

You know what, you convinced me, the cops and FBI should have let them go. Now here comes the good part...

What would you have done differently? Remember, your answer will be scrutinized and challenged with reality. Saying something like "I would only have searched where they were" or "I would only have fired 1 bullet after having cornered him on a deserted street" I hope you realize would be too dumb to be considered as a real response.

Keep in mind, NOBODY who went through it is complaining and the guy who's boat they shot up is not complaining and all the pictures I have seen of bullet holes in peoples walls are from people who are not complaining. So after you give us your brilliant plan on how you would have handled the manhut (which won't come), why are you?

First, I would have left all of the military equipment at the military equipment depot. Then I would have had the bus loads of normally uniformed and equipped officers blanket the area, in a similar fashion, with instructions to not waste time searching obviously non-hostage homes. When something smelled fishy, I would have called in the experts, either getting a bench warrant or somehow assuring the occupants that the plain sight rule was on vacation. Vacant houses would be surveilled until search permission was granted by the owner.

TopoGigo:farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.

Also, what about when they show up next week with a search warrant looking for your weed? Or are we supposed to prevent that they forgot everything they saw?

farkinglizardking:Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.

Biological Ali:TopoGigo: Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

Let's say the police saw the suspect (an armed and extremely dangerous individual believed to be responsible for several deaths and a great deal of destruction) enter one specific house. Would they need to get a warrant before they could go inside?

If the police have a reasonable belief that that suspect continues to pose a threat, then hell no. That's the very reason for the probable cause exemptions. The cops do have a tendency to stretch the spirit of it for suspects they damned well could wait for a warrant before arresting, but for this particular asshole it would be perfectly reasonable to search that house. In fact, if they had seen the asshole enter a small 4 or 6 unit apartment building, it would have been reasonable to search every apartment. Much less certain than that, though, and you lose probable cause.

links136:pedrop357: links136: They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB& in dex=12

Yeah, super voluntary.

and judging by this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3XsD-U1oOk, seeing them casually walk around, gun down, with people walking their dogs, talking to folks, they that first video was likely right after the gun fight, when they had no idea if he was still within 100 yards and armed, and judging by the light, it looks REALLY early. So i'm gonna say that first video was the immediate 'we just got ieds and bullets thrown at us and a cop killed' search, which ended up with the larger 'lets just walk around' search.

OK, so that may be understandable on a human level, but it doesn't make it OK. For instance, if you raped my sister, I would be wrong to beat you to death. It's understandable, but still wrong, and I'm still going to jail.

OK, so that's an ass analogy, but I'm too sleepy to come up with a better one. Bottom line is that we pay the cops to be the law and they need to be held to that standard. The fact that they're scared, or hopped up on adrenaline, or dreaming of Dirty Harry, or whatever does not give them the right to exceed their authority.

TopoGigo:whidbey: I would expect this kind of total manhunt knowing incredibly dangerous the suspects were, and definitely after the subsequent events in Watertown.

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this.

Man, I really wish I could write you off as a troll and be done with it. I mean, I've seen you go clear off the rails crusading for the Democratic establishment plenty of times (in fact, you're the only leftie I have marked in troll/disruptive/stupid red3) but I've never seen you lose your sh*t over something so stupid that doesn't directly relate to a party line. Sadly, I just don't get an asshole, satire, moron, or troll vibe from you so I have to believe this is how you really think. I may consider changing your label from "Democratic party crusader" to "Yells at own shopping cart full of garbage".

Once again you have no concept of what the term "probable cause" means and you are resorting to personal attacks when confronted. Not going to repeat this information again.

links136:Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

you mean the guy with the dude shooting at them, throwing ieds and leaving pressure cooker bombs while driving over his brother and breaking barricades? They were probably making sure these were the boston bomber suspects.

Time is linear, man. You can't use the -ing suffix for something that happened in the past. The Dude may abide, but exigent circumstances do not. Nobody here is saying that while these two assholes were actually shooting at them, the police were violating anybody's rights.

What I and others in this thread are saying is that after the shooting was over, the police were not justified in the measures they took to track down and apprehend the remaining asshole.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.

Can I add something here too? The searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment because nothing found in your home would have been allowable as evidence in court. If they found you did something illegal -like you removed that tag off of your mattress that reads DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW - they can't convict you for it.

The police were 'searching' for the suspect, but it's not the same thing as a 'search' as defined under the 4th Amendment. It's not. At all.

whidbey:I would expect this kind of total manhunt knowing incredibly dangerous the suspects were, and definitely after the subsequent events in Watertown.

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this.

Man, I really wish I could write you off as a troll and be done with it. I mean, I've seen you go clear off the rails crusading for the Democratic establishment plenty of times (in fact, you're the only leftie I have marked in troll/disruptive/stupid red3) but I've never seen you lose your sh*t over something so stupid that doesn't directly relate to a party line. Sadly, I just don't get an asshole, satire, moron, or troll vibe from you so I have to believe this is how you really think. I may consider changing your label from "Democratic party crusader" to "Yells at own shopping cart full of garbage".

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.

Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

Personal attacks from you doesn't change the fact that probable cause was justified per the 4th Amendment, either. The honorable thing to do is admit you have no viable argument here and you are acting hysterical.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.

Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

There was no active firefight as the police were searching houses. If TFA is to be believed, there was no active firefight when Justin Bomber was captured, just attempted murder. Yes, the day before there was certainly a firefight, but that was well and done with. The previous day's shoot-out with these terrorists may have been poor judgement or poor tactics due to the danger of collateral damage (or maybe it wasn't--it's a matter of opinion) but it was legally and morally justified. Once that event, and the "hot pursuit" when the suspect's general location was known, ended the justification ended with it.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.

Indeed, not. The tears are for the rest of us. What a sad turn of events that we should be victimized worse by those charged with protecting us than we were by those we needed protection from. Just remember, if the police can do this to a terrorist, they can do it to you. I'd like to think that Enemy of the State wasn't a documentary.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

If that's the case, I'm less upset. I still don't love that police can search my yard without probable cause or a warrant, but under extreme circumstances such as this I can accept it. Based on the video posted a little upthread, though, it sure sounded like they weren't asking permission to search houses.For the record, if given the choice between sucking a dick and getting my house searched by SWAT teams, I might just go for the dick. Both would disgust me and leave a bad taste in my mouth, but at least sucking a dick wouldn't feel so much like rape.

TopoGigo:VerbalKentt: Look at the facts on the ground well the situation is unfolding. What did the officers know, two individuals deploying various IED's, more than likely had possibly killed one cop already.... car jacked one vehicle, they were armed. So in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public. Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...

Jesus. You really believe that, don't you? Just some food for thought here: we don't let our military behave this way in a war zone, but you're fine with it on American soil.

Yes you have a confirmed active shooter numb nutz. Given a situation where an officer has the subject in front of them and he is the confirmed active shooter every single officer in the country has a right to neutralize that threat. This is how our world works. And how almost every single use of force policy is written in this country.

We don't let our military behave like that in a war zone? You're high. Many solders have opened fire on vehicles for not stopping at a road block, thinking it could have been a bomb laden car only to find they just shot a family. Majority done with no repercussions. So while your theory looks good on paper and in print in the real world the shiat just doesn't work that way. Not saying that's right or correct but i'm not the one to judge their self preservation.

jaytkay:ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!

Yeah, in the chaos of "suspect already in custody" zero guns can accidentally be miscounted as three.

Cops are covering their asses because they farked up, stripped a neighbourhood of their fourth amendment rights to try and fix the problem, still couldn't find their guy, then overreacted when presented with an unarmed suspect who wasn't armed by that time.

VerbalKentt:Look at the facts on the ground well the situation is unfolding. What did the officers know, two individuals deploying various IED's, more than likely had possibly killed one cop already.... car jacked one vehicle, they were armed. So in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public. Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...

Jesus. You really believe that, don't you? Just some food for thought here: we don't let our military behave this way in a war zone, but you're fine with it on American soil.

VerbalKentt:So in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public. Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds..

. It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance. What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.

The problem with them shooting first is that this makes it very possible that they will shoot people who merely look like these guys. THAT is where my problem primarily lies.

In their shoes, I'm still not opening fire on anyone in the vicinity. Just because a dispatcher says that a police vehicle was stolen, I'm not opening fire on a vehicle that is marked police just in case they're in there.

I may have to hide and assess things in order to avoid shooting the wrong people. This is how good people do things. They realize that they aren't the only ones that matter. The police apparently don't do this. They sure as hell don't put themselves in anyone else's shoes.

It was more like a military invasion than a manhunt. Putting that kind of ordinance in close contact with with civilians is more like something for a time of war. Because the very real problem is that putting troops in with civilians will cause casualties.

In this case the police/fbi response was way overkill for the even the worst case projections of what heat the suspects were packing.

So wait, we're talking about the guys that have several explosives and DID shoot a cop (MIT), right? So we're upset he didn't have enough guns now or what? Weren't people worried that a chased man known to have explosives would do when he was cornered? Sure, send one guy with a vest.

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen. Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.//doubleplusungood

So sick of this part of this shiat... "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.

WTF was law enforcement supposed to do? Tip toe down the center of the street calling "olly olly oxen free, come out come out wherever you are" ???

If they had done anything less, someone else would give them shiat for not doing enough.

ohknaks:LessO2: It's gonna be hard to find anyone, short of relatives, to be outraged about shooting at these guys, whether they had any guns or not. There will likely be more people outraged at the fact little brother didn't die.

I'm pretty outraged about the police response to this whole situation. Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week and shooting at unarmed suspects? This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.

My sentiments exactly. What's worse, in my opinion, is that the only people who will publicly denounce such acts by the police are certifiable nutjobs. It's almost as if the Alex Jones of the world are plants designed to make us dismiss any legitimate criticism of the status quo. All logic tells me that isn't the case, but damned if my conspiracy meter doesn't wobble a bit anyway.

Ok, before people start losing their minds over "friendly fire" and what have you, can we just remember that there were two separate incidents in Watertown. The cop that was injured was injured during the first incident (Overnight Thursday), where the brothers were both alive and shooting and throwing explosives. The incident that this article is talking about is the 2nd incident which happened Friday night.

Jeez FARK you've put me in some weird positions lately. I hate cops with a passion, but this was actually pretty tame compared to some over-reactions in the past. There were no civilians killed by police or the suspects. It was over within 24 hours. They supposedly have a confession and enough evidence so there is no doubt they got the right guys. The suspects committed a terrorist act, killed a cop, and were actively tossing explosives at law enforcement. I won't use the word 'restraint', but it could have been far worse. As for 'shutting down' the city, I can understand requesting that folks stay inside. The proof of the wisdom of this decision is the fact that no one got shot taking out the trash or walking their dog. I think the house to house searches set a scary precedent that we need to be watchful of, but vigilance is the duty of the civilian. I suspect that decision came from the feds and not the locals. All in all I'd say the handling of this shows an improvement from other cop overkill situations in the past.Anyway, yeah, I feel really weird now.

winchester92:I live in Watertown and tow for the state and local police, I towed one of the smashed and shot-up police cruisers from the scene of the shootout. It's incredible how much of the story the media got wrong. They also never mentioned the name of the boat. I know it because I have friends who know the owner personally, and we looked up the boat name in the Watertown Yacht Club directory. BTW, it's "Slip Away II". Is that freaky or what ??

"All the Federales sayThey could have had him any dayThey only let him Slip AwayOut of kindness, I suppose..."

Evil High Priest:ftfa: Law enforcement believes that the Tsarnaev brothers tried and failed to steal Collier's gun after shooting him from behind, the first of several things that went wrong for the two young suspected terrorists that night.

So, they failed to 'steal' a gun from a dead man? Wow. That's a lot of fail right there.

Police holsters are designed to make it hard for someone other than the person wearing it to remove the gun. You have to take the gun out at the proper angle or something. I bet the gun got stuck and they panicked and ran.

pedrop357:LessO2: pedrop357: The FBI agent and state police officer that were fired on by other cops might be a little angry, as should all the people whose houses were riddled with bullets by police who were operating on bad information and shoot like shiat.

The only cop who is likely pissed (or at least trying to) is the transit cop to took a bullet to the jimmy.

The homeowners will likely just take pictures and chalk it up to the heat of the moment.

Umm. There were two other cops shot at. One FBI agent and one state trooper. They were shot at by stupid cops operating on more bad information. I don't care what happened to them, but they might.

Fact of the matter is, they robbed a 7-11 at gunpoint and believed they had killed the MIT cop. Does it matter how many guns the brothers had? One, two, three....20? Does it make a difference in the heat of the moment?

The FBI guy and the Trooper weren't hit. They likely chalked it up to the heat of the moment.

Like I mentioned before, and that you conveniently ignored, there was a transit cop that was also shot.

pedrop357:I'd be happy if they just accepted that everyone in the area still has civil rights and can't be ordered out of their house so it can be searched without a warrant, nor ordered to stay indoors.

The real heroes are the libertarians who hampered the search for a bomber and cop-killer.

Never, ever comply with any request for help. Interacting with other people makes you weak.

LessO2:pedrop357: The FBI agent and state police officer that were fired on by other cops might be a little angry, as should all the people whose houses were riddled with bullets by police who were operating on bad information and shoot like shiat.

The only cop who is likely pissed (or at least trying to) is the transit cop to took a bullet to the jimmy.

The homeowners will likely just take pictures and chalk it up to the heat of the moment.

Umm. There were two other cops shot at. One FBI agent and one state trooper. They were shot at by stupid cops operating on more bad information. I don't care what happened to them, but they might.

IntertubeUser:After capturing the younger brother, my opinion of law enforcement improved a bit. And now...this. Cops are generally lying sacks of shiat who are marginally better than the scum they're after, but they are still generally lying sacks of shiat.

Never trust cops to tell the truth. Ever.

Treat them with respect due vampires.

Never invite them into your home.Do not engage them in conversation.Avoid the places they frequent.

I heard it was a Glock AK-47 with detachable high-capacity 30 bullet clip mags. Collapsible stocks and barrel shrouds included...

Actually they had multiple 900-round ammo belts, and the bullets were injected with depleted uraniaum and then sprayed with teflon so they would penetrate SWAT vests. And they soaked them in rat poison so they wounds wouldn't coagulate.